Thinking Out of the Box

Last Lion

Whenever someone disagrees with whatever you are saying, out comes the name calling. One of the most popular demeaning things to call someone is “genius” largely because the person using that term to ridicule another is someone stuck inside a box unable to see that the world around them is changing. Essentially, a genius is anyone who thinks outside the box and is willing to explore to see how things really work. They are not the “book smart” people who can repeat what they read, but the people who remain open minded. Einstein was called a genius. Why? Because he dared to never stop questioning and followed the evidence to reach a conclusion that was outside of the box.

Unfortunately, the majority simply conform. There are those married to this idea that the world revolves around gold and somehow we need to return to a gold standard. They fail to examine how that idea has always failed and this same theory of austerity is tearing Europe apart. They are unwilling to explore on an unbiased path to see where this is going or to ever consider for one moment that governments are headed toward electronic money to ensure 100% tax collection and see gold as a barbaric relic of the past.

Those willing to think outside the box are often ridiculed. They are typically hated by those who simply are stuck in a single idea and refuse to ever budge.If thinking outside the box is being a genius, then what does that make someone inside the box?

Genius is not knowing everything – it is willing to explore and remain open minded. Our greatest casualty in society stems from the fact that we have been unable to advance in our thinking as a society for we disregard the accumulative knowledge of centuries.

So as I said at our conference, everyone who attends must be a genius because they are thinking outside the box, willing to explore, judge on their own, and advance in knowledge rather than remain married to antiquated ideas of a system that has failed countless times in  the past. In the Last Lion on Winston Churchill, the explanation is thought provoking on this subject matter.

Clearly there was something odd here. Winston, Davidson had conceded  was the ablest boy in his form. He was, in fact, remarkable. His grasp of history was outstanding. Yet he was considered a hopeless pupil. It occurred to no one that the fault might lie, not in the boy, but in the school. Samuel Butler defined genius as “a supreme capacity for getting

its possessors into trouble of all kinds,” and it is ironic that geniuses are likeliest to be misunderstood in classrooms. Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile on children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds. In­telligent but uncreative students accept conformity, never rebel, and complete their assignments with dispatch and to perfection. The creative child, on the other hand, is manipulative, imaginative, and intuitive. He is likely to harass the teacher. He is regarded as wild, naughty, silly, unde­pendable, lacking in seriousness or even promise. His behavior is dis­tracting; he doesn’t seem to be trying; he gives unique answers to banal questions, touching off laughter among the other children. E. Paul Tor­rance of Minnesota found that 70 percent of pupils rated high in creativ­ity were rejected by teachers picking a special class for the intellectually gifted. The Goertzels concluded that a Stanford study of genius, under which teachers selected bright children, would have excluded Churchill, Edison, Picasso, and Mark Twain.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s